PerformanceRiskValuationProfitabilityCashflowLiquidityESGRevenue & Geographic ExposureForecastFinancial GrowthIncome GrowthCashflow GrowthBalance Sheet Growth
Tilray Brands, Inc. (TLRY.TO)
2.000.05 (2.56%)
1.90 - 2.15
0.48 - 2.54
9.88M / 2.92M (Avg.)
-0.48 | -4.19
Steady, sustainable growth is a hallmark of high-quality businesses. Value investors watch these metrics to confirm that the company's fundamental performance aligns with—or outpaces—its current market valuation.
18.78%
Revenue growth 1.25-1.5x WEED.TO's 12.76%. Bruce Berkowitz would check if differentiation or pricing power justifies outperformance.
49.59%
Positive gross profit growth while WEED.TO is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
190.40%
Positive EBIT growth while WEED.TO is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
190.40%
Positive operating income growth while WEED.TO is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
171.27%
Positive net income growth while WEED.TO is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
162.90%
Positive EPS growth while WEED.TO is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
162.90%
Positive diluted EPS growth while WEED.TO is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
2.26%
Share count expansion well above WEED.TO's 4.47%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
2.43%
Diluted share count expanding well above WEED.TO's 0.37%. Michael Burry would fear significant dilution to existing owners' stakes.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-28.58%
Negative OCF growth while WEED.TO is at 45.84%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-32.85%
Negative FCF growth while WEED.TO is at 30.73%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
1211.10%
5Y revenue/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x WEED.TO's 999.10%. Bruce Berkowitz would verify if cost efficiency or pricing power supports this advantage.
736.04%
3Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x WEED.TO's 243.78%. David Dodd would confirm if there's an emerging competitive moat driving recent gains.
-600.11%
Both show negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would question if the entire market or product set is shrinking or too capital-intensive.
-3629.51%
Both show negative mid-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman might suspect a challenged environment or large capital demands for both.
-19942.46%
Both face negative short-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman would suspect macro or cyclical issues hitting them both.
175.53%
Positive 10Y CAGR while WEED.TO is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
37300.27%
Positive 5Y CAGR while WEED.TO is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
-73.74%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
4319.20%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x WEED.TO's 1783.21%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
1522.06%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x WEED.TO's 651.61%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
48.90%
Below 50% of WEED.TO's 99.20%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
0.05%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. WEED.TO's 17.58%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
47.19%
We show growth while WEED.TO is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
3.70%
Positive asset growth while WEED.TO is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
3.02%
Positive BV/share change while WEED.TO is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
-4.80%
We’re deleveraging while WEED.TO stands at 44.21%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
4.80%
We increase R&D while WEED.TO cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
0.20%
We expand SG&A while WEED.TO cuts. John Neff might see the competitor as more cost-optimized unless we expect big payoffs from the overhead growth.